pfr654@csc.anu.oz (07/09/90)
In article <1990Jul8.052331.101@d.cs.okstate.edu>, minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: > Me: > |> I personally think it is in Apple's best interests to come as close to > |>giving away Macs as is possible to increase the installed base. In the > |>long run, this would be very beneficial. stuff deleted > for PCs, lots and lots of Macs will be sold. Ever hear "God, I'd love > one but I just can't afford that." I hear it way too often, and **I** > feel guilty. If only I could say "Not anymore! Check this out... you get Robert, you have hit the nail on the head. Every Mac user/owner since Adam has the same feeling: GUILT because s/he decided that the extra expense was worth it, in other words that s/he is better off than s/his freind who says they'd love one but can't afford one. How many of us have sold our old macs at bargain basement prices to freinds/relatives (i.e. less than normal 2nd hand) to encourage them to join the fraternity? (i.e. I am considering selling my SE for 70% of the price it would sell for via the papers, to a brother-in-law who's decided he should get a computer, and thinks that Windows + cheap clone is the same as a mac) How many of us would LIKE to *give* a mac to the nearest 'Macs are toys' MS-DOS user to convert them? WE all know that the Mac is better. We all know that you get more in a Mac box than in a PC box BUT WE STILL WANT A CHEAP MAC THAT EVERYONE COULD AFFORD *WITHOUT* HAVING TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR APPLE. ('R&D' being the favorite) *====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===* Phil Ryan ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics Canberra, Australia pfr654@csc.anu.oz.au phone:(61 6) 249 4678 fax:(61 6) 249 0741
cbm@well.sf.ca.us (Chris Muir) (07/11/90)
In messaqge <2353.26987f28@csc.anu.oz> pfr654@csc.anu.oz (Phil Ryan)
writes:
*WE all know that the Mac is better. We all know that you get more in a Mac
*box than in a PC box BUT WE STILL WANT A CHEAP MAC THAT EVERYONE COULD
*AFFORD *WITHOUT* HAVING TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR APPLE. ('R&D' being the
*favorite)
Apple isn't really more expensive than IBM or Comaq. Apple is about the same as
any "real" large computer company. Do people who compare Apple's prives with
clone prices also buy genericly packaged food?
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Muir | "There is no language in our
cbm@well.sf.ca.us | lungs to tell the world just
{hplabs,pacbell,ucbvax,apple}!well!cbm | how we feel" - A. Partridgesteve@uswmrg2.UUCP (Steve Martin) (07/12/90)
In article <18949@well.sf.ca.us> cbm@well.sf.ca.us (Chris Muir) writes: >In messaqge <2353.26987f28@csc.anu.oz> pfr654@csc.anu.oz (Phil Ryan) >writes: >*WE all know that the Mac is better. We all know that you get more in a Mac >*box than in a PC box BUT WE STILL WANT A CHEAP MAC THAT EVERYONE COULD >*AFFORD *WITHOUT* HAVING TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR APPLE. ('R&D' being the >*favorite) > >Apple isn't really more expensive than IBM or Comaq. Apple is about the same as >any "real" large computer company. Do people who compare Apple's prives with >clone prices also buy genericly packaged food? It's true, we did a comparison of buying a Mac to buying an IBM or Compaq with nearly identical features and the Mac won hands down. Go out and buy yourself a large two page display for an IBM sometime! -- Steve Martin | Nothing I say can be held against U S West Marketing Resources Group | Me or my employer! (...uswat.uswest.com!uswmrg2!steve)
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (07/15/90)
Here are my two cents concerning apple's so called 'overpriced' machines. It appears that a discussion on that issue is imminent, so here goes. The CPU prices themselves are really not overpriced compared to IBM or Compaq machines. If you compare these prices you will notice that in many instances the Mac even beats the PC price/performance ratio (remember, a PC is just a CPU with some memory, hard drives and drives are usually extra, so is the display). Their laserprinters and normal printers are up there and with the proliferation of competing printers are starting to look REALLY overpriced, and apple could stand some price cuts on that domain. It appears that the new Lasers will bring some new pricing with them. Their peripherals, memory and such are hopelessly overpriced and simply should not be purchased by any smart buyer. Just because they have an apple model number does not make them any better than third party products. Case in point hard drives, which are just Quantum drives and can be bought cheaper and with a better warranty from almost any vendor. CD-ROM drives are another example, since I just bought a Hitachi that is faster, works just the same and is about twice as fast. Apple SIMM memory prices are really a joke - that, I believe is a fact of life. The obvious question is : Why? In my opinion these prices are merely that way precisely to drive people to buy from third parties. Much of apple's support for their machines has always stemmed from third parties who pick up apple's lead and perfect it better and cheaper than apple. This was proven by the FAXmodem market, the CD-ROM market and so forth. Apple's introduces new technology (for peripherals) and than leaves the market to third parti4s, making sure their product is so overpriced that smart buyers will not buy it, and that it still makes a huge profit off those who do. To me, their pricing strategies are sound for the existing machines, except I do believe that they need a low-cost, mass-market mac that can gain tremendous inroads on the personal field and the academic domain.